Opinion
May 18, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leahy, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
This court must accord great weight to the determination of the hearing court as to the credibility of the witnesses who testified before it since that court had the advantage of having seen and heard them testify (see, People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761; People v. Lambert, 125 A.D.2d 495; People v. Gee, 104 A.D.2d 561). The hearing court's findings that the defendant was given Miranda warnings, and voluntarily and intelligently waived them, and that his oral statements were not induced by force or coercion, are supported by the record. Accordingly, the defendant's argument that his oral statements should have been suppressed because the People failed to satisfy their burden of proving that they were voluntarily made must be rejected (see, People v. Smith, 118 A.D.2d 605, 606; People v. Springer, 118 A.D.2d 606, 607).
The trial court properly declined to instruct the jury that there was a question of fact as to whether the complainant, who was shot three times during this incident by the perpetrators, was an accomplice to the crimes charged, whose testimony would have to be corroborated pursuant to CPL 60.22. There was no reasonable inference which could be made from the evidence presented at trial that the complainant in any way participated in the crimes charged (see, People v. White, 26 N.Y.2d 276, 278; People v. Santana, 82 A.D.2d 784, 785, affd 55 N.Y.2d 673; People v. Byrd, 106 A.D.2d 511).
We have reviewed the defendant's other contentions and find them to be without merit. Lawrence, J.P., Eiber, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.